Originally posted by @philokaliaI quoted you verbatim and gave a link to the conversation your pronouncements arose from.
Because you attempted to convince peopel that I believe in a rightless & freedomless world, when both of us know that the reason for these distinctions is a very subtle one, and i tdoes not invovle countermanding the worth freedom & justice, but actually invovles observations about how these things are implemented.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI have not been ranting. And I do not see what "defamation" there has been.
So, instead of being lead to a thread that focuses on discussing it from a nuanced and philosophical perspective, they have an inflammatory ranting and defamation.
Originally posted by @philokalia"Worthless", "deserve", "merit", "degenrate", "virtue", the "productive factors" of individuals, whether citizens are "valuable and wanted" etc.
RIght, and I do not agree with that because there are some religious beliefs that are utterly worthless and do not have merit ot them, and they should not be respected under all circumstances...
In the championing or abrogation of people's freedoms, who gets to decide the definition of these things [above]? You? Greek Orthodox Catholics generally? Oligarchs? A military junta in a society with no network of rights and freedoms?
Originally posted by @philokaliaI was not a supporter of the Soviet Union, nor was I a Stalinist, nor was I a subscriber to Communist ideology, nor did I condone the judicial murder of the 300,000 Orthodox clergy you mentioned, nor any of the other similar atrocities committed.
The Soviet Union atheists massacring Christian clergy and believers, sending them away to gulags. I believe an estimated 300,000 Orthodox clergy were killed (and targeted) and there were countless other belivers who perished along with them. And this would be part of the ideology that would have insisted that they are fighting for the universal freedom of things.
I would have seen what was done to those 300,000 people (and others) - and how they ought to have been treated by those in power - through my prism of rights and freedoms.
In Indonesia, a burgeoning civil society, rooted firmly in notions of rights and freedoms, has also seen a decrease in the kind of actions as you complain about in the Soviet Union.
Presumably, you welcome this change, even if there are some people [and beliefs] you personally think are "worthless" and "degenerate" who are also protected by those systematized rights and freedoms
Originally posted by @philokaliaThey are not "decontextualized". I provided a link to the context. And they are quoted verbatim. They are not even drawn from disparate places in the conversation [on page 7 if I am not mistaken]; they constitute a multi-sentence sustained expression of your thoughts and ideas, and they are reiterated elsewhere in the same conversation. They represent your stance accurately, I think. I have been completely honest about it.
You cherry picked and decontextualized what I wrote with the goal of defamation.
If you take quotes out of context to make people look bad, is that honest?
Thread 175672
You are mistaken if you think that I am even interested in having a debate with you on this -- no debate is necessary.
You put my full name on a thread title & cherrypicked quotations and placed them out of the full context to make me look bad when I was a totally new member, and it happened after the tone of our discussion soured a little bit.
You should also recollect that my comments about how this was rude & inappropriate were upvoted in the thread where you used my name because it was universally clear to everyone that your actions were inappropriate and just a vicious attack and attempt to defame me.
Everybody here knows what your character is -- and that is why I am glad to just reiterate this point every single time you try to respond.
Nobody would ever think that FMF selected quotations and wrote about them because he wanted to have an honest discussion about the content. They would all know that it was highly personal, and highly fixated on a few points that were attempted to be twisted away from their original meaning.
If you apologize to me I will drop the topic, and, you know what? I won't even bring up your apology to me on the topic ever again because I will actually respect you and let sleeping dogs lie.
Originally posted by @philokaliaWhich bit is "defamation"?
You cherry picked and decontextualized what I wrote with the goal of defamation.
Originally posted by @philokaliaDo as you think fit.
You are mistaken if you think that I am even interested in having a debate with you on this -- no debate is necessary.
Originally posted by @philokalia"Apologize"? What for?
If you apologize to me I will drop the topic, and, you know what? I won't even bring up your apology to me on the topic ever again because I will actually respect you and let sleeping dogs lie.
Originally posted by @philokaliaYou said some stuff. I asked you a question. You said you'd answer it on another thread. I started the thread. I quoted the stuff you'd said. And I asked you the question again (and you fled). How was it a "vicious attack"?
You should also recollect that my comments about how this was rude & inappropriate were upvoted in the thread where you used my name because it was universally clear to everyone that your actions were inappropriate and just a vicious attack and attempt to defame me.
Originally posted by @philokalia"Reiterate this point every single time you try to respond"?
Everybody here knows what your character is -- and that is why I am glad to just reiterate this point every single time you try to respond.
Reiterate what point?
(1) The people who decide the fate of the nation are the rightful rulers of those nations, and their duty is to uphold the just laws of the land and safeguard the welfare of the people.
Plenty of governments can meet that description in plenty of formats.
I suggest not codifying "rights" and "freedoms" in the exceedingly hypocritical and worthless ways which they are codified in Europe & N. America, and to not restrict people while convincing them that you are actually giving them more liberty.
I also have ideas about the politiciziation of society that tie in closely with this. Basically, when society itself is "democratized" and turned into factions competing over power, they begin to routinely cut one another out of power. The goal is no longer justice, the goal is winning and raiding the coffers for one's own benefit.
(2) What do you really support?
So far we have "Muh Rights" -- can you even define those?
(3) So we leave off again with FMF pretending that there is no issue with his behavior.
Look, if you don't understand how taking the full government name of someone, putting it in the thread title, and then cherrypicking the quotations that would cause other people to lash out at them isn't simply starting a new thread to ask a question...
Then I don't know what to say.
Either you are lying to all of us and feel no shame about totally ignoring basic right and wrong when dealing with people....
OR,
You were never socialized properly and have some literal cognitive disorder that does not allow you to evaluate your actions or empathize with others.
As you are an Anglophone and a very typical Westerner in every single other regard, I don't see any other option.
Originally posted by @philokaliaWhat do you mean by "Muh Rights"?
What do you really support?
So far we have "Muh Rights" -- can you even define those?
Originally posted by @philokaliaSo I'm either "lying" and I ignore "basic right and wrong" or I "have some literal cognitive disorder"? You seem upset.
Either you are lying to all of us and feel no shame about totally ignoring basic right and wrong when dealing with people....
OR,
You were never socialized properly and have some literal cognitive disorder that does not allow you to evaluate your actions or empathize with others.